Pages

Friday, 20 June 2008

Honest badges (updated)

Elijah Lineberry has fashioned a more accurate set of badges than the patronising Ministry-supplied set -- badges that trendy white liberal teachers can wear between macrame classes to really show their solidarity with their brown brethren. My favourites:

3. Welfare, not work 9. Give me your land 10. I believe in Taniwhas

All he needs now is $56,000 of taxpayer money to get them into classrooms.

Watching PC & Pergio's piss weak defense of this clearly delusional sociopath is wildly entertaining, they certainly know how to rally around people of equal quality to themselves. Watching PC descend into name calling after two posts is particularly hilarious.

I agree with Luke here. It's time that the Libz kick out Elijah. He is a disgrace to the party. His racism (which is un-libertarian) & constant put down to others (more like pretending that he is filthy rich, but he's not) and most of all, his idiotic comments on blogosphere, must be an embarrassing to the Libz.

If the Libz love Elijah, so much, then please let him be an Auckland Minister, if the Libz get to Parliament, but just restrict him from visiting K'Rd at night time.

Seems the collectivist mindset of outfits including the Brown Table and fellow travellers have been most successful institutionalising certain schemes and also particular cultural habits. The tragedy is that now whenever someone raises the less salubrious results for discussion, that person is taunted as being racist. Similarly, the victims, trapped in a hopeless culture of dependence, identify their plight not with the destructive nature of collectivism, but rather as the result of racial and historical determination.

Attacking an individual because you don't like the point he raises is a weakling's way of avoiding the point he raises. Ask yourself, "Is there an element of fact of reality in what he called your attention to?" If so, address it.

I think the badges are quite funny, but you can't deny that Elijah doesn't go over the top with his jokes. Making smarmy comments about Māori and working class people can be a politicaly incorrect breath of fresh air, but Elijah sometimes takes them to the point of racism and snobbery.

I'm sitting with the fence post jammed firmly up my crack on this one. I tend to think in opposites - give me a situation or example and I'll generally consider how or if the opposite could or would hold true. Or to put it another way I'm often deliberately contrarian. For example when I first read about these abominable badges (that are not only a bad idea for the fact that they want school teachers running around with racially exclusive slogans pinned to their tweed jackets, but are a cringe worthy, patronising failure even discounting that), my first inclination was to consider the effect of teachers running around with racially exclusive negative slogans pinned to their tweed jackets. After all if we float the (not true but let's pretend) idea that "nice" racism is OK, then it holds that "not nice" racism is OK too. Because nice/not nice or offensive/not offensive are entirely subjective and not valid as criteria for judging the "racism" part. Racism can be judged independently of the nice/not nice variables as in both situations it remains what it is - an excercise in irrational collectivism: Ascribing all manner of traits to an individual because of his race, whether or not those traits are "nice" or "not nice".

Coming across Elijah's post with no prior knowledge of him, I'd see it as a case of "Well, if we're going to play that silly game" and as an illustration of the point I am trying to make above. Where I take issue however is that I have read Elijah's irrational and racist dribblings before. I also take issue with "accurate" and "honest". Rather than pointing out the irrationality in the original badges by simply flipping them to make the point - it could very, very easily be construed with Elijah's history here and the way he has put it, that his intention was in fact to challenge not the racism itself, but the "nice" part of it. It could be construed that Elijah thinks "not nice" racism would be more "accurate" or "honest".

Like I said, I'm sitting firmly on the fence with this one (and will no doubt cop it from all sides because of it) and I'll probably regret wading in to the thread.

Well, seeing as we are all getting offended, I'm offended that so government functionary thinks that I have made such an appalling job of raising my children that their teachers have to wear those stupid badges to get my childeren to engage with them.

PC, I'm pretty amazed to see you championing Elijah's racist bullshit. Do you honestly, honestly find it either funny or clever? Fails both tests for me.

Perhaps you think neither criterion is important, as his lowest-common-denominator effete sneering makes some sort of timely, important point. I don't. I think he's simply marked himself out as a hilariously elitist wanker. Poor show, chap, eh what.

Any element of truth raised by the original post - and there are horrid statistics to "back" almost every badge except perhaps the Taniwha one - are overshawdowed by the overall tone of negative racial stereotypes.

There are ways, and then there are ways. Elijah Lineberry simply does things very consistently in a racist way.

What DenMT has written about is his opinion of Elijah's "racism". He has not commented on whether there is truth in what the badges direct one's attention to and whether there is any truth in that.

DenMT played the man. But what he's being asked about is the issue raised.

Can he answer?

---

Turning now to your opinion.

What you are saying is that since you don't like racial stereotypes, therefore you do not intend to consider or address the core issue seriously. The excuse you offer for evading the point is very weak.

So what if you dislke Elijah and how he presents material? The issue to focus on is whether fact has been identified and what it means. Perhaps there is a correlation between a sterotype and an element of reality. If there is, why so? What is causing it?

So, put your opinion about Elijah aside for a moment and address the questions above. What do you think?

1. You’re giving Lineberry way too credit by interpreting this as “satirical response” to the ridiculous Ministry of Education initiative. The simplest explanation is usually the correct one and isn’t this more likely to be another case of Lineberry denigrating an ethnic group he feels is inferior? Context is important: a black joke might be funny when Chris Rock tells it, but not when a clansman does.2. The “response” isn’t funny. Hardly side-splitting; hardly a belly laugh; hardly in the vein of Carlin or Wilde. “Give me your land.” Hilarious. 3. If this is not an example of the racism as defined by Rand - i.e. the idea that ‘a man’s convictions, values and character are determined before he is born’ - what is? What’s the threshold for expressing the racism Rand finds so abhorrent? A lynching?4. In the context of Rand’s epistemology, there’s no “truth” or “accuracy” here. It’s irrelevant how overrepresented Maori are in negative social statistics; it’s still a crude collectivist generalization. Seeing 100 black ducks does not mean that all ducks are black.

Elijah, as far as accuracy goes, I bet the proportion of Maori who actually believe in Taniwhas would be pretty small. And the percentage of Maori who are "5th Generation Bludgers" would also be pretty tiny, I suspect.

Libertarians and other anti-egalitarians know how wrongheaded the original badges are. That’s a given. What’s not a given is how well libertarians and other anti-egalitarians understand the error of collectivist thinking.

I’m assuming the badges characterize some kind of “Maori epistemology”. I’m assuming that, say, badge 9 suggests that “if you are a Maori you have an invalid claim on someone else’s land.” As long as you can find one exception to this suggestion, this is demonstrably false. This is exactly the kind of collectivist thinking that Rand refers to; an implication that a Maori’s moral character is determined by genetics.

Coming from a libertarian, or any other kind of anti-egalitarian, it simply can’t be compared to, say, an Irish drinking joke or a Jewish thrift joke. For many of us, drinking and thriftiness are hardly vices. But an unjust claim on another’s property most certainly is. Additionally, the badges don’t share the same benevolent spirit as the other jokes, especially not coming from someone who has previously advocated “ethnic cleansing”.

Alternatively (and more likely the case), Linberry might be suggesting that a relatively large or vocal minority of Maori have this invalid claim on someone else’s land. This might be what LGM and others mean by “accurate”. However, Lineberry doesn’t make this clear, and, regardless, the implication that (all) Maori are defined by this is grossly unjust to those that think differently. Given that we know that a nasty undercurrent of racism exists amongst weak-minded individuals as a rationalization for their own failures and frustrations, all it seeks to do is reinforce the kind of thinking Rand criticizes.

PC, in my opinion that was a desperately poor attempt to defend something that wasn't remotely funny. Lineberry's parlour-room bullshit was a guffaw for neanderthal rednecks at best.

To respond to LGM: Indeed, my dislike for Elijah Lineberry based on his despicable online persona has no real bearing on anything. You ask 'is it correct'? Is what correct? Is it correct that Maori people prefer welfare to work? No. Do you think so? Is it incisively witty to suggest so, to point up the fact that Maori are disproportionately represented in unemployment and sickness benefit statistics? You be the judge.

'Let's Get Bashing'? '5th Generation Bludger'? Not remotely funny, or close to the truth. Simply the product of a very simple, ancient form of mockery. And simple things amuse simple minds.

DenMT

(It is comforting to me now that I live in another country to step back and remember that the views championed on this blog are shared by a very tiny, tiny sector of NZ society.)

Elijah, you claim that you’re “right”. Right about what? What precisely is the claim you are making? You’ve just admitted that these are accurate observations. The principle behind this kind of comedy is to stretch a non-essential far from reality to the point of absurd exaggeration. That’s what makes it funny: the absurdity (and the delivery.) A joke, by definition, is not serious. So what are these badges? Humorous exaggerations stretched far from reality or “honest” and “accurate” observations?

It’s beyond cynicism to present an honestly held opinion in a way that can be interpreted ambiguously. So much for “saying what you mean and meaning what you say”. It’s the very definition of dog whistle: presenting statements in one context than you know will be interpreted in another. I put it to you, sir, that this was never a light-hearted attempt at humor. It was an effort to reinforce the idea that Maori are morally inferior, taking advantage of the silly and wasteful initiative by the Ministry of Education that was in the news.

Lineberry, don’t pretend for a moment that you occupy the moral high ground. I know you’re wrong. You probably take some comfort that tens if not hundreds of thousands of ignorant, frustrated people secretly agree with you, but that doesn’t make you (or them) any less wrong.

Read what I wrote and address it directly. That's the best policy. It’s not difficult either.

I wrote, "The point at issue remains. Is it correct? Is there an element of truth in it? What do you think about it?"

Clearly "it" refers to "the point at issue" and that point is not whether you like Elijah (or not). Nor is it whether you like what he presented (or not). The issue is whether what he identified contains a truth (a fact of reality). What is required here is a more serious consideration than, "I don't like Elijah because he says naughty bad things."

So consider, is there an element of truth in what was presented? Is there a correlation between the stereotype and the behaviour/attitude/circumstances/ideas of the people it is aimed at? If there is, why are some people like that? What is going on with them?

Of course, in the end this all boils down to ideas. That's what really needs to be looked at in a bit of detail. For instance, is welfarism moral? What does it do to the people who are infected by it or the ones who are subjected to it or those who are subjugated to it? What about those who suffer endless expropriations of resources (time and property etc.) to fund it? Similarly, what about the socialism, collectivism and political correctness (which several people around here seem to be infected with themselves) that leads some to conclude that one person (or group of persons) must be treated differently than another on the basis of non-fundamental attributes? Is that moral? If not, why not? Next, apply that to the bleeding heart liberals, certain authorities, special interests and influential lobbyists. After all, these are the ones who bleat on and on about prejudice and racial stereotyping while doing exactly that themselves. Hypocrites indeed…

Those badges, unpleasant though you may find them, are not so easily dismissed.

---

You write that you are off shore. Where are you living these days? What’s it like?

Justin, Dem and others, as I said on another post on solopassion.com, for my badges to be inaccurate means you believe:

1. In taniwhas2. That there is no Mongrel Mob initiating violence against others3. There are no Maori on welfare4. Maori are entitled to blame everyone else for their problems5. Maori do not fail examsetc...etc..

So if you chaps want to live in a PC fantasy World believing in taniwhas ..well..knock yourselves out, but some of us live in a real World, where real things exist and prefer to tell the truth as it is.

Capitalists are rapistsCaucasians are genocidalLibertarians are assholesetc.

According to your logic, as long as you can find a single example, the statement becomes “true”. That renders the status of “truth” pretty meaningless. What you’re doing is defining by non-essentials. A single instance, a minority, a plurality, or even a majority of instances does not (necessarily) define the concept. If, in a parallel universe, the majority of Maori were members of violent gangs, Maori would still not be defined by this. A man, regardless of race, is not defined by the choices of others. Do you think it is just or “accurate” to associate Cpl. Willie Apiata VC (who identifies as a Maori) with these traits?

For your statements to be truly accurate, they need to be qualified more preceisely. For example:

However, you really have no interest in accuracy. You seek to make broad generalizations about an entire ethnic group by highlighting negative, non-essential traits. You seek to negate those crucial qualifications and infer causality (rather than merely an insignificant correlation) between race and morality.

I am glad that there’s now some clarity around whether these were statements of “accuracy” or whether they were “jokes”.

Justin, let me quote comedian George Carlin for you, who died this week:

"I believe you can joke about anything. It all depends on how you construct the joke. What the exaggeration is. What the exaggeration is. Because every joke needs one exaggeration. Every joke needs one thing to be way out of proportion..." This, by the way, was his way of introducing a monologue on how rape can be funny. (His example: Porky Pig raping Elmer Fudd.)

Hi PC, I'm not a politcally correct umbrage-taker and I do appreciate George Carlin's humor. But, as Carlin notes, the keys are in construction (Lineberry's was poor) and exaggeration (according to Lineberry, they weren't, they were "accurate".)

1. Commenters are welcome and invited. 2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.